this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
16 points (94.4% liked)

New York Times gift articles

613 readers
201 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IonAddis 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting article.

Basically, we decreased air pollution aerosols successfully, but that type of pollution had a cooling effect. So once they were removed, we weren't being shielded as well from the greenhouse gas-related heat, and greenhouse gas emissions are still going up and haven't yet reversed. So we're getting the full brunt of the heat from that now without aerosols from air pollution mitigating it.

The scientist's outlook in this is that that was predicted by their models, that getting rid of the aerosols first would cause it to get warmer, which perhaps suggests their other models have some degree of reliability.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah. There's a reason the IPCC has this chart

[–] twelvefloatinghands 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If acid rain is the cost of avoiding heat death, I'll take it, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Geoengineering doesn't need to use SO2 as it's particulate. If this was a choice, it could be done with a less harmful compound

[–] twelvefloatinghands 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought so2 was the best one? Are there other options that are as effective?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Lots of options. SO2 is the best studied because we've been emitting it as a combustion byproduct

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So basically we made climate change worse when we foolishly tried to make air breathability better. In conclusion, some pollution is good pollution.. I think?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

That pollution was killing people. A lot of them.

Ending particulate emissions is an important co-benefit of decarbonization, even if it means that temperature rises afterwards; that rise is already locked in as something we'll get when fossil fuel reserves are exhausted.